I really don't have the same problem that you report. I'm using WinMX 3.22 on my P4 2.0 GHz w/ 512 MB RAM. I've left WinMX on for days, even as much as a week or two at a time, and never experienced any slowing down of the computer. Of course my computer does have more RAM, but I've left WinMX on for a day or two on my slower (PIII 450 - 128 MB) computer without any noticable slowdown. It could be a configuration issue though possibly. I'm connected through a secondary connection, maybe thats it...
OK, I know, I'm stupid when it comes to knowing anything about the Linux kernel, so please be patient.
I just got a new computer, and I installed a dual boot of Windows 2000 and Redhat 7.3. When I went into Linux, and tried to mount windows (mount/dev/hda1/mnt/windows) an error was returned saying that the kernel did not support NTFS. Windows 2000 uses the NT file structure as oppoesed to FAT32 that previous versions of windows have used. My question is whether or not newer versions of the kernel will have the ability to mount windows 2000 partitions.
Re:Now begins the hardest part...
on
Ogg Vorbis 1.0
·
· Score: 2
I usually don't reply to AC's, but I'll make an exception.
except there will be none left - wal-mart will not raise prices until after there are no local stores left. At which point you have no choice.
Do you actually think that Target or K-Mart or Meijer, or any other mega-corp will go out of business? Wal-mart will never have a monopoply. Thus, if the "mom and pop" stores at least provide good enough service to offset the extra cost of their goods, then they too will stay in business.
If you are total free market nutter , then yes mom and pop deserve to go under, monoplies rule ok.
The thing is though, in a free market, that doesn't happen. As I explained above, wal-mart won't have a monoply and "rule". Mom and pop won't go under, as long as they provide good service. Monopolies don't rule in a free market. Based on your post I would say that you have shown incredible ignorance. But that's alright. I challenge you to go out and learn. The free market is not a bad thing, don't be afraid of it.
Actually, it could be for the same reason. I think that chess, as well as crosword puzzles, other word games, etc. reduces the risk of alzheimer's because you use your brain a lot in these activities, similar to the principle of "use it or lose it". Perhaps drinking caffine also causes your brain to be used a lot more. I mean, if you're more awake and more alert, then you're also probably using your brain more.
Of course, if this were true, then I'd imagine that halucinogenic drugs probably also reduce the risk of alzheimer's.
Unfortunately, in some places Wal-Mart is beginning to reach a quasi-monopoly status because their prices are so much lower and they are so much more convenient that other grocers and retailers are being squeezed out.
The thing about that is though, they will only have their quasi-monopoly as long as the continue to have low prices and good convinience. As soon as they begin to raise their prices, people will shop at target, or some small local store. And really, if local stores can't at least keep their prices almost as low as wal-mart's, they deserve to go under. I'm willing to pay a few bucks extra to get better service, but not too much more.
I really like you sig, but I think that it would read better if it said "Liberty over life, fear of big brother over fear of terror." instead of what it currently is.
OK, here are my theories about the matrix: First of all, remember that the only explanation that we have of the matrix is from Morpheus. Now, Morpheus said himself that humans did not know that much about the matrix. Perhaps Morpheus is wrong about the machines using humans as a power supply. Perhaps the machines need to keep humans around in order to do their thinking for them. Maybe the machines put humans into the year 1999 because they wanted to see how they were created. Also, about using Llamas, maybe when the skies were torched all species except humans were destroyed. I don't really know, but hopefully Matrix 2 will do some more explaining.
interstate commerce is the fed's responsibility, dude. it's in the constitution.
Yeah, but interstate commerce is different than keeping consumers informed. The federal government has the power "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes (Article I, Section 7) This says nothing about keeping consumers informed.
If you really believe in free markets, then the government absolutely has an obligation to ensure that economic actors can base decisions on reliable information
WRONG! The government does not have an obligation to inform the consumers of the world. The consumers have an obligation to inform themselves. Magazines such as Consumer Reports prove that the free market is able to handle this responibility.
Nowhere in the Consitution does it state that the government has an obligation to keep consumers informed. However, it does state in the tenth amendment that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This means that the federal government cannot do anything that is not expressly allowed by the constitution. I don't think that the constitution states that the government is obliged to keep the people informed about economic decisions. Therefore organizations like the FTC that try to keep consumers informed, although their intentions are good, need to butt out, because keeping consumers informed is not the government's responsibility.
By the way (very offtopic), but check out the First post. It's an ascii rendetion of goatse man. I saw it by looking at the first posters of this story. He was the only one. I guess I thought it was funny (like we havent been tricked into that link before;-).
Heh, I bet you're the one who made that first post...;-)
The signs are all here. Linux on the desktop is coming. First, walmart selling linux pre-installed. Second, (and this is just a personal observation, nothing scientific) more and more people seem to know about Linux. More of my non-geek friends and people I know seem to know what Linux is. Third, gamemakers are starting to actually make Linux versions of their games. And its not some other company (like Loki). The actual company that made the game is making a Linux client. They do this becuase they know that there are now enough people actually using Linux on their desktop, that the money to be made from developing the Linux version outweighs the cost of making the Linux version. I say in another two years, we'll see Linux reach a critical point and have about 10% of the desktop market share.
Use WinMX 3.2, it is an awesome filesharing program. Just make sure that you make a secondary connection to the network, not a primary connection (you'll know what I mean if you download it), then WinMX 3.2 is just plain awesome. It's got all of the good features of the old WinMX (plenty of songs and varying bitrates, decentralized server, anonymity, no spyware) as well as all of benefits of Kazaa (download resuming and multiple source downloads).
If you are only getting results that are from people with huge queues, then you probably tried to do a primary connection to the network. Make sure that you make a secondary connection to the network, then WinMX 3.2 is just plain awesome. It's got all of the good features of the old WinMX (plenty of songs and varying bitrates, decentralized server, anonymity, no spyware) as well as all of benefits of Kazaa (download resuming and multiple source downloads).
Why not 1) sense the danger and 2) manipulate relevant minds to defuse the danger?
Because as Yoda put it "The dark side clouds everything". They used to be able to this for the most part. They can't exactly manipulate relevent minds because only weak minds are susceptible to Jedi mind tricks. However, before the dark side, The Jedi's only responsibilty was to be a keeper of the peace, which basically involved sensing danger and telling the Senate about it.
As for the second idea, in Star Wars Obi-Wan is a Jedi and the portrayal of his powers is restrained and tasteful.
You can't really use Old Obi-Wan's or Old Yoda's power's as a basis for comparison. Although they were both at one time powerful Jedi, in episodes 4-5, they are very old and their power is weakening. A better basis for comparison would be to Vader and Palpatine. As you may recall, they were both very powerful, able to shoot lightning and strangle people with their mind from light-years away. When you realize this, you see that young Obi-Wan's and young Anikin's power's in Episodes 1 and 2 were really not that far-fetched in comparison to the original trilogy.
I think that the only reason that you don't like AOTC is that there are many powerful Jedi and they are not the underdogs. You prefer to root for the underdog.
Ok, I read that thread, and they kept talking about Qui Gon's voice, or his call from beyond. Where was this in the movie?
BTW, my favorite little detail in the movie was on Tatooine when Anikin was saying goodbye to Padme right before he went to look for his mom. If you look closly Anikin's shadow looks mysterously like Darth Vader's shadow. I though that was so cool.
I personally thought that Samuel L. Jackson was pretty bad-ass. I mean, when he walks up, holds out his purple light-saber in front of Jango's head and says "This party's over" How could younot think that was the most bad-ass thing in the movie? (with the possible exception of Yoda's "much to learn you still have, Dooku") Although, he should have been in the movie more, IMHO.
Man, there are some reasons why you might not like this movie, but every single reason that you just listed is just plain dumb.
First of all, Obi-Wan and the rest of the Jedi ARE heroes that cen perform super-human feats. They can use the force, which means that they have premonition of danger and can manipulate people's minds. In A New Hope, Luke and Leia weren't Jedi, at the time they were just regular people. Remember, in later movies, as Luke became a Jedi he was able to do super-human feats like lifting things up with his mind and causing himself to fall into a ventinlation shaft and not die after falling a great distance.
Anikin is supposed to be moody and whiny and all around unlikable. After all, he is falling into the dark side.
If you don't think that Dooku is a good villian, than you must be on crack. And Palpatine/Sidious?! These are classic, truly great villians.
AOTC is about a group of poeple trying to save the republic, ANH is about a group of people trying to bring back the republic. Same principle IMO.
AOTC will never be the same as ANH or any of the old movies, but it still is great. Just beacuse things don't 'remain the same' does not make it a 'very inferior movie'.
What are you talking about? That trailer was awesome! It didn't give away too much plot, and it kept you begging for more... exactly what a trailer should do, IMO. I wasn't sure if Matrix 2 was going to live up to its predecesor, but after seeing the trailer, I'll be counting down the days until Matrix 2 comes out.
The usual fluff around here about leaving the libertarians free to exercise their personal freedoms provided that nobody is directly harmed is of no value to the discussion and a waste of bandwidth.
A waste of bandwidth, eh? Well, you seem so set in your ways, I fail to see why you are even discussing anything. Personally, I think that it's always good to keep an open mind.
If we expect software vendors to reduce features, lengthen development cycles, and invest in secure software development processes, they must be liable for security vulnerabilities in their products.
The simple fact is, customers do not want software that has reduced features and is more expensive. The customer wants cheap software that is slightly secure and feature-full. If a customer wants secure software, then there are alternatives (Linux, BSD, contract a programmer to create a secure program...)
If the government begins to practice software liability, then they are essentially telling the customer what she wants. The government does not know that the customer wants, the cusomer knows what the customer wants.
Intellectual-property experts said the patent clearly should have not been issued, but that such mistakes were inevitable from an underfunded government agency that issues 3,000 patents each week.
If the patent office is so underfunded, then why don't they charge more to apply for a patent? When I applied to colleges, the colleges did not complain because they accidently accepted a few people that they should't have because they were underfunded. No, if they are underfunded, then they simply raise the cost to apply. At each school I applied to, it cost between 40 and 70 dollars. Now, some of you might claim that this would be unfair to the poor inventor, but I say that this is simply the cost of doing business. The patent office would be much less underfunded, and thus issue less stupid patents if they raised the cost to apply by simply $10.
Thats not what he said, he said that one possible reason for people to get addicted to games is because their real life sucks. His main point anyways was that it's not the game or the substance that is at fault in the addiction, but the person themself (and the person's personality).
Duplication is not waste. What you lose in duplication, you gain in lower prices through competition. If you don't believe me, ask any economist.
Yes, we disagree about the empirical evidence. But my point was that many times we ignore empirical evidence or we turn a blind eye to it if it doesn't support our pre-conceived ideas such as this one:
Competition is good.
with no evidence to back it up. Perhaps there is a lot of evidence to support that statement, but you haven't showed me any. This sounds more like a mantra than an an observation of fact.
Forgive me for not being more clear. My statement of the fact that competition is good came from the argument that the amount of money that you lose in duplication is gained in lower prices. Competition causes lower prices. A hypothetical numerical example: There are 3 cable companies, each lays their own cables. The cost of laying cables is, say, $1 million. Therefore there is a $2 million "waste". Now, if there was only 1 cable comapny, each subscriber would pay, say, $70 per month. With three cable companies, the companies are more efficient and thus only charge on average, say, $45 per month. Subscribers save $35 dollars a month. Say there are ten thousand cable subscribers in the city. $35/month * 10,000 subscribers = $350,000 saved per month. It would only take 6 month to make up for the $2 million dollar waste. And that does not take into account the better service and more features that subscribers would be sure to benefit from. Therefore, based on this thought experiment, competition is good.
You didn't really say *how* your counterexample showed that my analogy is flawed. You just said so. You'll have to do more to convince me than merely restating your conclusions.
You stated that it would be inefficient to have more than one sewer company becuase there would have to be a different set of pipes running to you house everytime you switched sewer companies. I was simply trying to provide an example for you to show that you would not have to build entirely new facilities everytime you switch companies.
So you agree with my premise that 5 strong companies are better than 300 crappy ones. OK, now we're getting somewhere.;-)
I think the market's instinct in this regard is very true. Mergers and acquisitions allow cost savings, especially in administrative overhead.
Of course, I'm glad we agree on something. However, just because there are less companies does not mean that there is no competition. 5 or 6 strong companies still compete vigourously with eachother and create great products (just look at the car market). A market with 1 company does not have competition, thus crappy products are created (just look at the computer OS market). Government has no competition. What does that lead you to conclude?
Until you provide me with numbers *and* an unambiguous definition of "efficient" operations that we can both agree on. Until then you're just spitting into the wind.
Okay, I would define efficient operations as turning a profit. The Postal Service, a state run organization is extrememly inefficient. Last year, they lost $2.4 billion. Thats a lot of money. To quote from this website.
The Postal Service, however, has helped drive this business away. The organization is run like, well, the post office. Despite huge investments in automation, productivity growth has been pathetic - about 11 percent over the past three decades. The inefficiencies of the system, including inflexible labor agreements, skyrocketing retirement costs, and redundant layers of management, have been documented many times.
If competition were allowed (Its illegal for any companies to try to compete witht the postal service), I would argue that the prices would go down for stamps, and the efficiency and profit would rise. For evidence, look at FedEx and UPS. Although they are not allowed to ship anything for less than $3 (I believe) their first class deliveries are very good. They offer insurance and low prices, something the USPS cannot do.
If you go away with nothing else after having read this, just remember this: Choose the right tool for the job. Don't just see everything as a nail because you're holding a hammer.
I couldn't agree with you more. Just because The government exists and can do some things efficiently (I admit the gov't does run roads and sewers well, and these could not feasibly be run privately) does not mean that the government can run everything efficiently. We must be very careful in what we choose to have the government do for us.
If you have many competitors, you have a lot of duplication. If you have duplication, you have waste. Anyone in mergers and acquisitions will attest to that.
Duplication is not waste. What you lose in duplication, you gain in lower prices through competition. If you don't believe me, ask any economist. Competition is good. Now, obviously that doesn't mean that there will be 50 differnent sewer lines running through a city. Sewer pipes, like roads, are a public facility. However, just because they are public does not mean that you have to have one company. Roads are public, but that doesn't mean that there is only one bus company. And switching bus companies does not mean that you have to have a separate road built to your house. Your sewer analogy is flawed. Laying wire is much different than sewer pipes. Wires take up much less space than pipes, it is possible for many companies to lay wires throughout a city.
There are a couple of other situations in which a regulated monopoly or a state-owned enterprise might make more sense than an unreglated free market. Take a business like airport security. The service or product must be available even if a sudden and prolonged change in market conditions make it unprofitable to provide security services. People simply demand security even if it cannot always be provided at a profit by the private sector.
The problem with this argument, is that up until a few months ago, all airport security was private. Market fluctuations never caused the airports to drop their security. And, as a side note, there have been many reports of weapons getting past airport secuity, now that it has been turned over to the FAA.
Another situation in which one might choose state ownership or regulation over private ownership is one in which the product or service needs to be available at a very stable price, such as is the case with power utilities. Having 300 vendors battling for my power business, and then having half of them going out of business every two years would be a huge burden on the economy. The construction of large scale power grids and production facilities requires the kind of stability and advance planning that would be difficult to sustain in a perfectly competitive (or nearly so) market.
If you take your argument above, and insert cars instead of power utilities, you will see that your argument is again flawed. There are not 300 differnet car companies in the US, even though cars are not regulated. The market tends to level itself of at about 5 or 6 strong comapaines. Car prices are fairly stable, and the companies do not go out of business every two years. The same would ocur with power companies or cable companies if they were de-regulated.
If you go away with nothing else after having read this, just remember this: State run organizations are extrememly inefficient. They have little motivation to make better products and little motivation to please the comsumers. (For evidence, just look at communist russia) The private sector though does have motivation to make better product and plese the comsumer. If they don't, they will go out of business. State run organitions should only be used as a last resort.
Slashdot Mirror
I really don't have the same problem that you report. I'm using WinMX 3.22 on my P4 2.0 GHz w/ 512 MB RAM. I've left WinMX on for days, even as much as a week or two at a time, and never experienced any slowing down of the computer. Of course my computer does have more RAM, but I've left WinMX on for a day or two on my slower (PIII 450 - 128 MB) computer without any noticable slowdown. It could be a configuration issue though possibly. I'm connected through a secondary connection, maybe thats it...
OK, I know, I'm stupid when it comes to knowing anything about the Linux kernel, so please be patient.
/dev/hda1 /mnt/windows) an error was returned saying that the kernel did not support NTFS. Windows 2000 uses the NT file structure as oppoesed to FAT32 that previous versions of windows have used. My question is whether or not newer versions of the kernel will have the ability to mount windows 2000 partitions.
I just got a new computer, and I installed a dual boot of Windows 2000 and Redhat 7.3. When I went into Linux, and tried to mount windows (mount
Winamp 2.80 also has built in Ogg/Vorbis support.
I usually don't reply to AC's, but I'll make an exception.
except there will be none left - wal-mart will not raise prices until after there are no local stores left. At which point you have no choice.
Do you actually think that Target or K-Mart or Meijer, or any other mega-corp will go out of business? Wal-mart will never have a monopoply. Thus, if the "mom and pop" stores at least provide good enough service to offset the extra cost of their goods, then they too will stay in business.
If you are total free market nutter , then yes mom and pop deserve to go under, monoplies rule ok.
The thing is though, in a free market, that doesn't happen. As I explained above, wal-mart won't have a monoply and "rule". Mom and pop won't go under, as long as they provide good service. Monopolies don't rule in a free market. Based on your post I would say that you have shown incredible ignorance. But that's alright. I challenge you to go out and learn. The free market is not a bad thing, don't be afraid of it.
Actually, it could be for the same reason. I think that chess, as well as crosword puzzles, other word games, etc. reduces the risk of alzheimer's because you use your brain a lot in these activities, similar to the principle of "use it or lose it". Perhaps drinking caffine also causes your brain to be used a lot more. I mean, if you're more awake and more alert, then you're also probably using your brain more.
Of course, if this were true, then I'd imagine that halucinogenic drugs probably also reduce the risk of alzheimer's.
Unfortunately, in some places Wal-Mart is beginning to reach a quasi-monopoly status because their prices are so much lower and they are so much more convenient that other grocers and retailers are being squeezed out.
The thing about that is though, they will only have their quasi-monopoly as long as the continue to have low prices and good convinience. As soon as they begin to raise their prices, people will shop at target, or some small local store. And really, if local stores can't at least keep their prices almost as low as wal-mart's, they deserve to go under. I'm willing to pay a few bucks extra to get better service, but not too much more.
I really like you sig, but I think that it would read better if it said "Liberty over life, fear of big brother over fear of terror." instead of what it currently is.
OK, here are my theories about the matrix: First of all, remember that the only explanation that we have of the matrix is from Morpheus. Now, Morpheus said himself that humans did not know that much about the matrix. Perhaps Morpheus is wrong about the machines using humans as a power supply. Perhaps the machines need to keep humans around in order to do their thinking for them. Maybe the machines put humans into the year 1999 because they wanted to see how they were created. Also, about using Llamas, maybe when the skies were torched all species except humans were destroyed. I don't really know, but hopefully Matrix 2 will do some more explaining.
interstate commerce is the fed's responsibility, dude. it's in the constitution.
Yeah, but interstate commerce is different than keeping consumers informed. The federal government has the power "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes (Article I, Section 7) This says nothing about keeping consumers informed.
If you really believe in free markets, then the government absolutely has an obligation to ensure that economic actors can base decisions on reliable information
WRONG! The government does not have an obligation to inform the consumers of the world. The consumers have an obligation to inform themselves. Magazines such as Consumer Reports prove that the free market is able to handle this responibility.
Nowhere in the Consitution does it state that the government has an obligation to keep consumers informed. However, it does state in the tenth amendment that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This means that the federal government cannot do anything that is not expressly allowed by the constitution. I don't think that the constitution states that the government is obliged to keep the people informed about economic decisions. Therefore organizations like the FTC that try to keep consumers informed, although their intentions are good, need to butt out, because keeping consumers informed is not the government's responsibility.
By the way (very offtopic), but check out the First post. It's an ascii rendetion of goatse man. I saw it by looking at the first posters of this story. He was the only one. I guess I thought it was funny (like we havent been tricked into that link before ;-).
;-)
Heh, I bet you're the one who made that first post...
The signs are all here. Linux on the desktop is coming. First, walmart selling linux pre-installed. Second, (and this is just a personal observation, nothing scientific) more and more people seem to know about Linux. More of my non-geek friends and people I know seem to know what Linux is. Third, gamemakers are starting to actually make Linux versions of their games. And its not some other company (like Loki). The actual company that made the game is making a Linux client. They do this becuase they know that there are now enough people actually using Linux on their desktop, that the money to be made from developing the Linux version outweighs the cost of making the Linux version. I say in another two years, we'll see Linux reach a critical point and have about 10% of the desktop market share.
Use WinMX 3.2, it is an awesome filesharing program. Just make sure that you make a secondary connection to the network, not a primary connection (you'll know what I mean if you download it), then WinMX 3.2 is just plain awesome. It's got all of the good features of the old WinMX (plenty of songs and varying bitrates, decentralized server, anonymity, no spyware) as well as all of benefits of Kazaa (download resuming and multiple source downloads).
If you are only getting results that are from people with huge queues, then you probably tried to do a primary connection to the network. Make sure that you make a secondary connection to the network, then WinMX 3.2 is just plain awesome. It's got all of the good features of the old WinMX (plenty of songs and varying bitrates, decentralized server, anonymity, no spyware) as well as all of benefits of Kazaa (download resuming and multiple source downloads).
Why not 1) sense the danger and 2) manipulate relevant minds to defuse the danger?
Because as Yoda put it "The dark side clouds everything". They used to be able to this for the most part. They can't exactly manipulate relevent minds because only weak minds are susceptible to Jedi mind tricks. However, before the dark side, The Jedi's only responsibilty was to be a keeper of the peace, which basically involved sensing danger and telling the Senate about it.
As for the second idea, in Star Wars Obi-Wan is a Jedi and the portrayal of his powers is restrained and tasteful.
You can't really use Old Obi-Wan's or Old Yoda's power's as a basis for comparison. Although they were both at one time powerful Jedi, in episodes 4-5, they are very old and their power is weakening. A better basis for comparison would be to Vader and Palpatine. As you may recall, they were both very powerful, able to shoot lightning and strangle people with their mind from light-years away. When you realize this, you see that young Obi-Wan's and young Anikin's power's in Episodes 1 and 2 were really not that far-fetched in comparison to the original trilogy.
I think that the only reason that you don't like AOTC is that there are many powerful Jedi and they are not the underdogs. You prefer to root for the underdog.
Ok, I read that thread, and they kept talking about Qui Gon's voice, or his call from beyond. Where was this in the movie?
BTW, my favorite little detail in the movie was on Tatooine when Anikin was saying goodbye to Padme right before he went to look for his mom. If you look closly Anikin's shadow looks mysterously like Darth Vader's shadow. I though that was so cool.
I personally thought that Samuel L. Jackson was pretty bad-ass. I mean, when he walks up, holds out his purple light-saber in front of Jango's head and says "This party's over" How could younot think that was the most bad-ass thing in the movie? (with the possible exception of Yoda's "much to learn you still have, Dooku") Although, he should have been in the movie more, IMHO.
Man, there are some reasons why you might not like this movie, but every single reason that you just listed is just plain dumb.
First of all, Obi-Wan and the rest of the Jedi ARE heroes that cen perform super-human feats. They can use the force, which means that they have premonition of danger and can manipulate people's minds. In A New Hope, Luke and Leia weren't Jedi, at the time they were just regular people. Remember, in later movies, as Luke became a Jedi he was able to do super-human feats like lifting things up with his mind and causing himself to fall into a ventinlation shaft and not die after falling a great distance.
Anikin is supposed to be moody and whiny and all around unlikable. After all, he is falling into the dark side.
If you don't think that Dooku is a good villian, than you must be on crack. And Palpatine/Sidious?! These are classic, truly great villians.
AOTC is about a group of poeple trying to save the republic, ANH is about a group of people trying to bring back the republic. Same principle IMO.
AOTC will never be the same as ANH or any of the old movies, but it still is great. Just beacuse things don't 'remain the same' does not make it a 'very inferior movie'.
What are you talking about? That trailer was awesome! It didn't give away too much plot, and it kept you begging for more... exactly what a trailer should do, IMO. I wasn't sure if Matrix 2 was going to live up to its predecesor, but after seeing the trailer, I'll be counting down the days until Matrix 2 comes out.
The usual fluff around here about leaving the libertarians free to exercise their personal freedoms provided that nobody is directly harmed is of no value to the discussion and a waste of bandwidth.
A waste of bandwidth, eh? Well, you seem so set in your ways, I fail to see why you are even discussing anything. Personally, I think that it's always good to keep an open mind.
If we expect software vendors to reduce features, lengthen development cycles, and invest in secure software development processes, they must be liable for security vulnerabilities in their products.
The simple fact is, customers do not want software that has reduced features and is more expensive. The customer wants cheap software that is slightly secure and feature-full. If a customer wants secure software, then there are alternatives (Linux, BSD, contract a programmer to create a secure program...)
If the government begins to practice software liability, then they are essentially telling the customer what she wants. The government does not know that the customer wants, the cusomer knows what the customer wants.
Intellectual-property experts said the patent clearly should have not been issued, but that such mistakes were inevitable from an underfunded government agency that issues 3,000 patents each week.
If the patent office is so underfunded, then why don't they charge more to apply for a patent? When I applied to colleges, the colleges did not complain because they accidently accepted a few people that they should't have because they were underfunded. No, if they are underfunded, then they simply raise the cost to apply. At each school I applied to, it cost between 40 and 70 dollars. Now, some of you might claim that this would be unfair to the poor inventor, but I say that this is simply the cost of doing business. The patent office would be much less underfunded, and thus issue less stupid patents if they raised the cost to apply by simply $10.
Thats not what he said, he said that one possible reason for people to get addicted to games is because their real life sucks. His main point anyways was that it's not the game or the substance that is at fault in the addiction, but the person themself (and the person's personality).
Forgive me for not being more clear. My statement of the fact that competition is good came from the argument that the amount of money that you lose in duplication is gained in lower prices. Competition causes lower prices. A hypothetical numerical example: There are 3 cable companies, each lays their own cables. The cost of laying cables is, say, $1 million. Therefore there is a $2 million "waste". Now, if there was only 1 cable comapny, each subscriber would pay, say, $70 per month. With three cable companies, the companies are more efficient and thus only charge on average, say, $45 per month. Subscribers save $35 dollars a month. Say there are ten thousand cable subscribers in the city. $35/month * 10,000 subscribers = $350,000 saved per month. It would only take 6 month to make up for the $2 million dollar waste. And that does not take into account the better service and more features that subscribers would be sure to benefit from. Therefore, based on this thought experiment, competition is good.
You didn't really say *how* your counterexample showed that my analogy is flawed. You just said so. You'll have to do more to convince me than merely restating your conclusions.
You stated that it would be inefficient to have more than one sewer company becuase there would have to be a different set of pipes running to you house everytime you switched sewer companies. I was simply trying to provide an example for you to show that you would not have to build entirely new facilities everytime you switch companies.
So you agree with my premise that 5 strong companies are better than 300 crappy ones. OK, now we're getting somewhere.
Of course, I'm glad we agree on something. However, just because there are less companies does not mean that there is no competition. 5 or 6 strong companies still compete vigourously with eachother and create great products (just look at the car market). A market with 1 company does not have competition, thus crappy products are created (just look at the computer OS market). Government has no competition. What does that lead you to conclude?
Until you provide me with numbers *and* an unambiguous definition of "efficient" operations that we can both agree on. Until then you're just spitting into the wind.
Okay, I would define efficient operations as turning a profit. The Postal Service, a state run organization is extrememly inefficient. Last year, they lost $2.4 billion. Thats a lot of money. To quote from this website. If competition were allowed (Its illegal for any companies to try to compete witht the postal service), I would argue that the prices would go down for stamps, and the efficiency and profit would rise. For evidence, look at FedEx and UPS. Although they are not allowed to ship anything for less than $3 (I believe) their first class deliveries are very good. They offer insurance and low prices, something the USPS cannot do.
If you go away with nothing else after having read this, just remember this: Choose the right tool for the job. Don't just see everything as a nail because you're holding a hammer.
I couldn't agree with you more. Just because The government exists and can do some things efficiently (I admit the gov't does run roads and sewers well, and these could not feasibly be run privately) does not mean that the government can run everything efficiently. We must be very careful in what we choose to have the government do for us.
If you have many competitors, you have a lot of duplication. If you have duplication, you have waste. Anyone in mergers and acquisitions will attest to that.
Duplication is not waste. What you lose in duplication, you gain in lower prices through competition. If you don't believe me, ask any economist. Competition is good. Now, obviously that doesn't mean that there will be 50 differnent sewer lines running through a city. Sewer pipes, like roads, are a public facility. However, just because they are public does not mean that you have to have one company. Roads are public, but that doesn't mean that there is only one bus company. And switching bus companies does not mean that you have to have a separate road built to your house. Your sewer analogy is flawed. Laying wire is much different than sewer pipes. Wires take up much less space than pipes, it is possible for many companies to lay wires throughout a city.
There are a couple of other situations in which a regulated monopoly or a state-owned enterprise might make more sense than an unreglated free market. Take a business like airport security. The service or product must be available even if a sudden and prolonged change in market conditions make it unprofitable to provide security services. People simply demand security even if it cannot always be provided at a profit by the private sector.
The problem with this argument, is that up until a few months ago, all airport security was private. Market fluctuations never caused the airports to drop their security. And, as a side note, there have been many reports of weapons getting past airport secuity, now that it has been turned over to the FAA.
Another situation in which one might choose state ownership or regulation over private ownership is one in which the product or service needs to be available at a very stable price, such as is the case with power utilities. Having 300 vendors battling for my power business, and then having half of them going out of business every two years would be a huge burden on the economy. The construction of large scale power grids and production facilities requires the kind of stability and advance planning that would be difficult to sustain in a perfectly competitive (or nearly so) market.
If you take your argument above, and insert cars instead of power utilities, you will see that your argument is again flawed. There are not 300 differnet car companies in the US, even though cars are not regulated. The market tends to level itself of at about 5 or 6 strong comapaines. Car prices are fairly stable, and the companies do not go out of business every two years. The same would ocur with power companies or cable companies if they were de-regulated.
If you go away with nothing else after having read this, just remember this: State run organizations are extrememly inefficient. They have little motivation to make better products and little motivation to please the comsumers. (For evidence, just look at communist russia) The private sector though does have motivation to make better product and plese the comsumer. If they don't, they will go out of business. State run organitions should only be used as a last resort.